EP2201216B1 - Method for prediction in an oil/gas production system - Google Patents

Method for prediction in an oil/gas production system Download PDF

Info

Publication number
EP2201216B1
EP2201216B1 EP20080803756 EP08803756A EP2201216B1 EP 2201216 B1 EP2201216 B1 EP 2201216B1 EP 20080803756 EP20080803756 EP 20080803756 EP 08803756 A EP08803756 A EP 08803756A EP 2201216 B1 EP2201216 B1 EP 2201216B1
Authority
EP
European Patent Office
Prior art keywords
production
method according
produced fluids
change
manipulated variables
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Expired - Fee Related
Application number
EP20080803756
Other languages
German (de)
French (fr)
Other versions
EP2201216A2 (en
Inventor
Olav Slupphaug
Steinar Elgsaeter
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
ABB AS Norway
Original Assignee
ABB AS Norway
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Priority to US93594507P priority Critical
Priority to NO20074557A priority patent/NO327688B1/en
Application filed by ABB AS Norway filed Critical ABB AS Norway
Priority to PCT/EP2008/061787 priority patent/WO2009030756A2/en
Publication of EP2201216A2 publication Critical patent/EP2201216A2/en
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of EP2201216B1 publication Critical patent/EP2201216B1/en
Expired - Fee Related legal-status Critical Current
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical

Links

Images

Classifications

    • EFIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
    • E21EARTH DRILLING; MINING
    • E21BEARTH DRILLING, e.g. DEEP DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
    • E21B43/00Methods or apparatus for obtaining oil, gas, water, soluble or meltable materials or a slurry of minerals from wells
    • BPERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
    • B01PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL PROCESSES OR APPARATUS IN GENERAL
    • B01DSEPARATION
    • B01D17/00Separation of liquids, not provided for elsewhere, e.g. by thermal diffusion
    • B01D17/02Separation of non-miscible liquids
    • B01D17/0208Separation of non-miscible liquids by sedimentation
    • BPERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
    • B01PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL PROCESSES OR APPARATUS IN GENERAL
    • B01DSEPARATION
    • B01D17/00Separation of liquids, not provided for elsewhere, e.g. by thermal diffusion
    • B01D17/02Separation of non-miscible liquids
    • B01D17/0208Separation of non-miscible liquids by sedimentation
    • B01D17/0211Separation of non-miscible liquids by sedimentation with baffles
    • EFIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
    • E21EARTH DRILLING; MINING
    • E21BEARTH DRILLING, e.g. DEEP DRILLING; OBTAINING OIL, GAS, WATER, SOLUBLE OR MELTABLE MATERIALS OR A SLURRY OF MINERALS FROM WELLS
    • E21B43/00Methods or apparatus for obtaining oil, gas, water, soluble or meltable materials or a slurry of minerals from wells
    • E21B43/34Arrangements for separating materials produced by the well
    • GPHYSICS
    • G01MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01FMEASURING VOLUME, VOLUME FLOW, MASS FLOW OR LIQUID LEVEL; METERING BY VOLUME
    • G01F1/00Measuring the volume flow or mass flow of fluid or fluent solid material wherein the fluid passes through the meter in a continuous flow
    • G01F1/74Devices for measuring flow of a fluid or flow of a fluent solid material in suspension in another fluid
    • GPHYSICS
    • G01MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01FMEASURING VOLUME, VOLUME FLOW, MASS FLOW OR LIQUID LEVEL; METERING BY VOLUME
    • G01F15/00Details of, or accessories for, apparatus of the preceding groups insofar as such details or appliances are not adapted to particular types of such apparatus
    • G01F15/06Indicating or recording devices, e.g. for remote indication
    • G01F15/068Indicating or recording devices, e.g. for remote indication with electrical means
    • GPHYSICS
    • G01MEASURING; TESTING
    • G01FMEASURING VOLUME, VOLUME FLOW, MASS FLOW OR LIQUID LEVEL; METERING BY VOLUME
    • G01F25/00Testing or calibrating apparatus for measuring volume, volume flow or liquid level, or for metering by volume
    • G01F25/0007Testing or calibrating apparatus for measuring volume, volume flow or liquid level, or for metering by volume for measuring volume flow

Description

    FIELD OF THE INVENTION
  • The present invention relates to a method in an oil and/or a gas production system comprising a plurality of oil and/or gas wells each producing a multiphase fluid stream, adapted for predicting change in produced fluids resulting from change in manipulated variables. The present invention also relates to a computer program product for executing one or more steps according to the method, and a system for an oil and/or a gas production in correspondence with the method.
  • BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
  • Production throughput is an important performance indicator in an oil and/or a gas production system. Herein, production throughput is intended to mean the oil and/or water and/or gas production per time interval. The throughput depends on many different factors; some may be specific to each production system, others are more general. One important general factor is how the limited processing capacity of the production system is utilized.
  • Manipulated variables in the production system may be settings related to routing, production valves or gas lift valves, and these manipulated variables should be chosen such that throughput is maximized while processing capacities are not over-utilized.
  • By using computer simulation or a mathematical optimization method, good values of manipulated variables may be found. The accuracy of the computer simulations and mathematical optimization methods depend on the accuracy of the parameters used in their mathematical model. To ensure good accuracy of the simulation, parameters of the mathematical model are normally determined through experiments.
  • Experiments on wells are generally performed by routing an individual well to a dedicated test separator. The oil, water and/or gas rates at the outlet of the separator are then measured. A test may take several hours, constraining the frequency at which wells can be tested. Oftentimes, production is only measured for a single value of manipulated variables; production may for instance be measured for the current production valve opening, a single-rate well test. During a multi-rate well test, multiple values of manipulated variables are tested for a single well, for instance by measuring production for multiple production valve openings. As production may require a time to settle once manipulated variables are changed, multi-rate well tests require a well to be routed to a test separator for a longer duration and may therefore be more costly. As the production system may already be producing at the constraints of its processing capacities, care must be taken not to exceed these constraints when a multi-rate well test is performed, so that multi-rate well tests have a risk and a possible cost related to temporary reduction in throughput.
  • For an oil and/or a gas system a well test is typically performed by routing the production from a single well (one of several wells in the system), 105, 106 or 127 (see Fig. 1) to a dedicated test separator 107. This allows for measuring of parameters related to this single (specific) well. The values measured are typically the flow rates of oil, water and gas, as well as test separator pressure and/or temperature, up- and downstream wellhead pressure and temperature, and choke opening. There is typically only one or a few such test separator(s) 107 in each production system. Therefore, all wells in the system cannot continuously be monitored.
  • The currently used method for predicting throughput in oil and/or gas production system as manipulated variables are changed is to use commercial simulators, see for instance Wang (2003) "Development and application of production optimization for petroleum fields". To increase simulator accuracy, commercial simulators are often fitted to single- and/or multi-rate well tests. Often, predictions of production found by commercial simulators for varying values of manipulated variables are collected in tables, so called proxy-models, and these proxy-models are fitted to production data rather than fitting commercial simulators directly, see for instance Zangl, G. , Graf, T. and Al-Kinani, A. (2006) "Proxy modeling in production optimization" in 'SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition' (SPE 100131).
  • A drawback of predictions based on commercial simulators either directly or through proxy-models, is that some error in the ability of the model to predict responses in production to changes in manipulated variables must be expected due to the complexity of modeling multiphase flows. This shortcoming could be mitigated by regularly performing multi-rate well tests for all wells and fitting models to these tests Such a method is disclosed in Patent application WO 01/62603 which is considered the closest prior art publication. The cost in terms of increased risk for complete or partial shut downs and/or temporarily reduced throughput of performing multi-rate well tests means that this is usually not a viable option. Fitting models to single-rate well tests may also improve model predictions somewhat, but single-rate well tests do not reveal information on the response of production to change in manipulated variables.
  • An international patent application WO2006/048418 entitled "Method and system for production metering of oil wells", discloses a method and system for the metering of oil wells. According to the method a series of well tests is performed initially, during which manipulated variables of a tested well are varied and measured variation in production is used to determine a dynamic fingerprint. During the series of well tests, the manipulated variables of one well are varied, while the production from other wells is maintained substantially constant or interrupted. Weights are found iteratively so that measured total production rates are close to a weighted sum of dynamic fingerprints. The resulting metering system is intended for determining current production given current production measurements.
  • Methods for fitting reservoir models to production data, usually from normal operation, are referred to as history matching. Costa, A., Schiozer, D. and Poletto, C. (2006), "Use of uncertainty analysis to improve production history matching and the decision-making process" in 'SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition'(SPE 99324), discusses how geological uncertainties can be quantified in history matching to determine the risk curve when predicting future reservoir performance. The authors suggested defining uncertainties in geological parameters from experience, before fitting models to historical production data for a variety of different values of uncertainty geological parameters and simulating with each model to determine the significance of said uncertainty on predictions of future production. Diab, A., Griess, B. and Shulze-Riegert, R. (2006), "Application of global optimization techniques for model validation and prediction scenarios of a north African oil field" in 'SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition' (SPE 1001093) discusses the use of the Multipurpose Environment for Parallel Optimization (MEPO). The authors discuss a scheme to perform multiple history matches using different optimization algorithms to obtain multiple estimates of model parameters in dynamic reservoir models.
  • Reservoir models are designed to describe the geological properties and states of a reservoir, emphasis is not on describing oil and/or gas production system and the relationship between production and manipulated variables. Reservoir models are used to determine strategies for injection of water and/or gas at injection wells in the reservoir, for aiding decisions related to field development such as installing new equipment or wells, or for making predictions on future trends in production on the timescale of months and years. Reservoir models are often large and complex and may require days to solve and are labor-intensive to maintain due to their complexity.
  • On the timescale of hours and days, the effects of change in geological properties and states or responses to change in injection will be barely noticeable on throughput in an oil and/or a gas production system. Throughput can be varied in a matter of minutes by altering manipulated variables related to gas lift, production valve or routing settings. Reservoir models will not be suited for maximizing throughput on these timescales, as any conclusions found by simulating reservoir models may be outdated by the time simulations are complete, and due to their complexity it may be difficult for reservoir models to predict changes in throughput correctly as manipulated variables change.
  • Performing a series of well tests may have a cost, as it may mean that throughput is not at its maximum during the tests. Instead of exploiting a series of well tests, it is conceivable to exploit historical measurements of normal operations, the difficulty of this alternate approach is that some manipulated variables may have been varied simultaneously and others may have been varied little or not at all. The quality of predicted throughput derived from historical measurements of production during normal operations may thus vary.
  • SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
  • A general object of the present invention is to provide a method and system to predict how changes in manipulated variables will affect throughput in an oil and/or a gas production system.
  • Another object of the present invention is to provide a method and system to exploit historical production measurements which describe normal operations.
  • To be easily maintainable, the invention preferably exploits information in recent historical measurements in the oil/gas production system to predict how throughput varies with manipulated variables.
  • These and other objects are achieved by a method and a corresponding system according to the present invention, having the features defined in the independent claims.
  • Preferred embodiments are set forth in the dependent claims.
  • The inventive method in an oil and/or a gas production system comprises a plurality of oil and/or gas wells each producing a multiphase fluid stream, is adapted for predicting change in produced fluids resulting from change in manipulated variables. Fitted model parameters which express the relationship between the change in manipulated variables and the produced fluids are determined from a set of historical production measurements. The method comprising the steps of
    • a. choosing a model structure which predicts change in produced fluids as a function of the change in manipulated variables, where the predicted change in produced fluids depends on the value of fitted model parameters
    • b. determining fitted model parameters so that predictions of produced fluids match said historical production measurements as closely as possible, such that the discrepancy between predictions of produced fluids and said historical production measurements is minimized
    • c. determining a quality tag that describes the uncertainty of said predictions of change in produced fluids.
  • The quality tag for the predictions of produced fluids is preferably determined by quantifying what range of fitted model parameter values give equivalent matches to the set of historical production measurements. Thus, a quality tag is preferably estimated to determine the expected accuracy of predictions by determining what range of parameters describe the set of historical measured production equally well, preferably by bootstrapping.
  • Instead of requiring a series of designed experiments in the form of e.g. multi-rate well tests for each well as disclosed in the prior art, the inventive method is preferably designed to exploit variation observed during normal operations. To account for the fact that historical data may be less informative than designed experiments, a quality tag is associated with predictions made for each rate. This quality information may be used to support decisions on which wells to test in order to reduce the uncertainty if found significant.
  • The fitted model parameters are preferably used to determine values of manipulated variables which increase throughput either during normal operation or start-up.
  • At least one quality tag is preferably used to determine values of manipulated variables which increase throughput.
  • The fitted model parameters are preferably determined through statistical regression analysis or through dynamic system identification.
  • The description of uncertainty of fitted model parameters is preferably determined through bootstrapping.
  • Preferably at least one fitted model parameter describes measurement uncertainty. Thus, measurement uncertainties may be determined in addition to fitted model parameter uncertainty.
  • Preferably, the model structure in addition to fitted model parameters depends on model parameters which are fixed.
  • The model structure is preferably based on physical modeling, black-box modeling, or a combination thereof.
  • The historical production measurements preferably include measurements of manipulated variables that influence routing valves, gas lift valves or production valves in the production system.
  • The model structure is preferably used to determine the present production of individual wells.
  • The description of uncertainty is preferably used to reduce or compensate for uncertainty in fitted model parameters.
  • Preferably, the set of historical production measurements can describe normal operations, where some manipulated variables are changed little and where other manipulated variables are altered simultaneously and may include single- or multi-rate well tests or multiphase rate measurements where available.
  • The historical production measurements preferably include measurements from a test separator or include measurements from a multiphase meter.
  • The historical production measurements preferably include measurements of separated produced fluids from one or several wells, such as the total separated production of oil, gas or water.
  • Preferably, a reference to at least one of prediction of produced fluids, quality tag or fitted model parameter, is presented to a user or an operator.
  • The fluid streams produced by the individual wells are preferably commingled and routed via a fluid separation assembly.
  • Further advantages as well as advantageous features of the present invention will appear from the following description and the appended claims.
  • SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE APPENDED DRAWINGS
  • The accompanying drawings illustrate the present invention by way of examples and, together with the following description, further serve to explain the principles of the invention and to enable a person skilled in the pertinent art to use the invention.
    • Figure 1 is a schematic drawing of an oil and/or a gas production system where an embodiment of the present invention is applied.
    • Figure 2 is a schematic drawing of an oil and/or a gas production system where an alternative embodiment of the present invention is applied.
    • Figure 3 is a flow chart for a method for predicting a throughput of an oil and/or a gas production system dependent on change in manipulated variables according to an embodiment of the invention.
    • Figure 4 is an illustration of production models and quality tags for a plurality of wells according to an embodiment of the invention.
    DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION
  • In figure 1 is shown a schematic drawing of an oil and or gas production system where the present invention may be applied.
  • The system comprises three wells 105, 106, 127, a production separator 108 and a test separator 107. The invention may naturally be also used in systems comprising two wells, or more than three wells.
  • 123 designates an upstream valve pressure of a valve 119 of a well 105; 124 designates an upstream valve pressure of a valve 120 of a well 106, and 125 designates an upstream valve pressure of a valve 126 for well 127. The term valve should herein be understood in a broad sense, i.e. to include a choke, a gate valve, a routing valve or a control valve.
  • 101, 102, 128 designate routing valves for production separator 108 for the wells 105, 106 and 127, respectively. 103, 104 and 129 designate routing valves for test separator 107 for the wells 105, 106 and 127, respectively.
  • 109 designates a flow rate measurement device for gas of production separator 108; 110 designates a flow rate measurement device for oil of production separator 108; and 111 designates a flow rate measurement device for water of production separator 108. 115 designates a water level measurement device for production separator 108. 117 designates an oil level measurement device for production separator 108; and 121 designates a gas pressure measurement device for production separator 108.
  • 112 designates a flow rate measurement device for gas of test separator 107; 113 designates a flow rate measurement device for oil of test separator 107; 114 designates a flow rate measurement device for water of test separator 107; 116 designates a water level measurement device test separator 107; 118 designates an oil level measurement device for gas of test separator 107; and 122 designates a gas pressure measurement device for test separator 107.
  • All measurements may be recorded in a data storage for later use.
  • Figure 2 is a schematic drawing of an oil and/or a gas production system where an alternative embodiment of the present invention is applied. According to this alternative implementation, the test separator 107 is replaced by a multiphase flow measurement device 130. After the stream has been measured, it is routed to the production separator 108. In figure 2, 130 designates a multiphase flow-rate measurement device. 131, 132 and 133 designate routing valves for the multiphase flow measurement device for wells 105, 106 and 127, respectively. The invention may naturally also be used in systems comprising two wells, or more than three wells.
  • All other items in figure 2 are described above in connection with figure 1.
  • Figure 3 is a flowchart for a method for predicting a throughput of an oil and/or a gas production system dependent on change in manipulated variables according to an embodiment of the present invention. The figure shows a number of steps: 310. Begin prediction of a change in throughput 320. Select a model structure to describe throughput change as function of change in manipulated variables
    340. Determine fitted model parameters so that the prediction match historical production measurements closely or as close as possible
    360. Determine quality tag to describe uncertainty of throughput predictions
    380. Optionally - Determine change in manipulated variables which increase throughput
    390. Optionally - Determine optimal throughput
  • Figure 4 is an illustration of a preferred embodiment of production models and quality tags in which the chosen model structure may comprise one or more expressions according to the following: q ˜ o i = max 0 , z i q o l , i 1 + α o i Δ q q l i + κ o i Δ q q l i 2
    Figure imgb0001
    q ˜ g i = max 0 , z i q g l , i 1 + α g i Δ q gi i + κ g i Δ q gi i 2
    Figure imgb0002
    q ˜ w i = max 0 , z i q w l , i 1 + α w i Δ q gi i + κ w i Δ q gi i 2
    Figure imgb0003
    where hat qo i is estimated oil, hat qg i is estimated gas and hat qw i is estimated water flow rates of well i for a field with a plurality of wells, and qgl i is gaslift flow rates of well i, which are the variables to be manipulated in this case. αo i, αg i, αw i and Ko i,kg i,kw i for all wells i are fitted model parameters. In this case zi represents production valve opening of well i and qo l,i, qg l,i and qw l,i represents local operating points of the model. qo l,i, qg l,i and qw l,i are measured rates of oil, gas and water which are determined in this case from the most recent well test for each well.
  • The diagrams in Fig. 4 show predictions of oil flow rates 40a, gas flow rates 40b and water flow rates 40c for eight wells, w1 to w8, when fitted to a set of historical production data using statistical regression and bootstrapping. Predictions are shown for different values of gas lift rates qg1 i 42, 43 and 44. Local operating points qo l,i, qg l,i and qw l,i are shown as circles in Fig. 4. Solid vertical lines illustrate the span of gas lift rates observed in the tuning set for each well, for the first well w1, 41a, 41b and 41c indicate the span of manipulated variables observed in the tuning set. The solid lines in Fig. 4 illustrate the actual response of the field to changes in qg1^, which would be unknown when implementing the method on field data. The different dashed lines represent predictions with different values of the fitted model parameters, and all these alternative fitted model parameters gave equivalent matches, or in other words within acceptable limits, between predictions and a set of historical production measurements. The set of different fitted model parameters represent a quality tag.
  • The inventive method in an oil and/or a gas production system comprises a plurality of oil and/or gas wells each producing a multiphase fluid stream, adapted for predicting change in produced fluids resulting from change in manipulated variables. Fitted model parameters which express the relationship between the change in manipulated variables and the produced fluids are determined from a set of historical production measurements, measurements of manipulated variables and measurements of production spanning a time interval. The method comprises the steps of:
  1. a. choosing a model structure which predicts change in produced fluids as a function of the change in manipulated variables, where the predicted change in produced fluids depends on the value of fitted model parameters;
  2. b. determining fitted model parameters so that predictions of produced fluids match said historical production measurements as closely as possible or within acceptable limit, such that the discrepancy between predictions of produced fluids and said historical production measurements is minimized;
  3. c. determining a quality tag that describes the uncertainty of said predictions of change in produced fluids.
  • The method relates to predicting production, while determining a quality tag for predictions of produced fluids which expresses uncertainty. This quality tag for predictions may be determined by quantifying what range of parameter values give essentially equivalent matches to the set of historical production measurements.
  • A model structure is chosen based on physical modeling, black-box modeling, or a combination thereof. Some parameters are fitted, in addition some parameters may be fixed and some parameters may express measurement uncertainty. The model structure should be capable of predicting change in production as manipulated variables influencing routing valves, gas lift valves or production valves in the production system change. Predictions should depend on the value of fitted parameters.
  • Parameters are fitted through statistical regression analysis or dynamic system identification, exploiting a set of historical production measurements. The set of historical production measurements can describe normal operations, where some manipulated variables are changed little and where other manipulated variables are altered simultaneously. The uncertainty in these parameters can be obtained through bootstrapping.
  • In a preferred embodiment, the invention may be used to determine values of manipulated variables which maximize throughput.
  • In addition the method relates to using said model to determine the present production of an individual well, and using the description of uncertainty to reduce or compensate for uncertainty in parameters.
  • The model may be fitted to measurements performed using a test separator 107. Alternatively or in addition, the model may be fitted to a multiphase flow measurement device 130.
  • The model may also be fitted to other measurements, for instance measured fiscal production rates.
  • The method may include presenting a reference to at least one of prediction of produced fluids, quality tag or fitted model parameter, to a user or an operator.
  • The present invention also relates to a computer program loadable into the internal memory of a processing unit in a computer based system comprising a memory storage device, comprising the software code portions for performing the steps according to the herein disclosed method, when the computer program product is run on said system. In addition the invention relates to a computer program product stored on a computer readable medium, comprising software code portions or a computer program for causing a processing unit in a computer based system, to control an execution of the steps according to the herein disclosed method.
  • Thus, the method according to the present invention may be implemented as software, hardware, or a combination thereof. A computer program product implementing the method or a part thereof comprises software or computer program, run on a general purpose or specially adapted computer, processor or microprocessor. The software includes computer program code elements or software code portions that make the computer perform the method using the steps according to the herein disclosed method.
  • The program may be stored in whole or part, on, or in, one or more suitable computer readable media or data storage means such as a magnetic disk, CD-ROM or DVD disc, hard drive, magneto-optical memory storage means, in RAM or volatile memory, in ROM or flash memory, as firmware, or on a data server.
  • In the following the method steps according to the present invention are described in more detail by way of examples.
  • Choosing a model structure
  • Let u be a vector of manipulated variables, let d be a vector of disturbances and θ be a vector of fitted parameters, and let y be a vector of measurements of production.
  • Let f be a vector which expresses the production of each modeled fluid produced from each modeled well. In a preferred embodiment, f may be a vector of the oil, gas and water production of each well. The production model is then any model on the form 0 = f x u d θ ^
    Figure imgb0004
  • The production model may also include parameters which are not fitted, for instance physical parameters whose value are assumed known. Fitted parameters may for example express unknown physical quantities or measurement uncertainties to be determined.
  • In a preferred embodiment, production is related to routing by a matrix R so that y t R t x t .
    Figure imgb0005
  • Predictions of measured values are related to the production model by y ^ g ^ t R t x ^ θ ^ t + β ^ g ,
    Figure imgb0006

    where beta y is a vector of measurement biases.
  • The choice of model structure is a design choice. f may be determined through physical modeling, either so-called white-box or so-called grey-box modeling, or f can be chosen as a relatively general model structure which expresses no prior physical knowledge, so called black-box modeling. Combinations of these approaches are also possible. Details on considerations when choosing model structure are found in Sjöberg, J. and Zhang, Q. and Ljung, L. and Benveniste, A. and Delyon, B. and Glorennec, P.-Y. and Hjalmarsson, H. and Juditsky, A. (1995) "Nonlinear black-box modelling in system identification: a unified overview" in Automatica, vol 31, page 1691-1724.
  • It is preferred that estimates as u changes can be influenced by the choice of θ, and that f has a structure that is concurrent with physical understanding of the relationship between manipulated variables and production. In a preferred embodiment, f may be a static nonlinearity and θ may include one parameter for the gradient and one parameter for the curvature between some manipulated variable for each well and the resulting production of that well.
  • Fitting parameters
  • In a preferred embodiment, the parameter vector θ may be determined numerically by a numerical optimization algorithm, for instance fmincon in MatLab solving a parameter estimation problem. θ ^ = argmin θ V θ Z N + V θ θ s . t . c θ θ 0.
    Figure imgb0007
  • The parameters are determined so that some measure of fit V(θ,ZN) is minimized, in addition to minimizing soft constraints Vs(θ) and obeying constraints cθ(θ).
  • The set of historical production data is Z N = y 1 d 1 u 1 y 2 d 2 u 2 u N d N u N .
    Figure imgb0008
  • In a preferred embodiment V is t = 1 N w t ϵ t 2 2
    Figure imgb0009

    where ϵ t = y t - y ^ θ ^ t t 1 N .
    Figure imgb0010

    are residuals.
  • In a preferred embodiment Vs(θ) may be a regularization term which penalizes deviation in θ from known values when available. In a preferred embodiment cθ(θ) may express sign constraints on θ when available.
  • Determine a quality tag
  • A quality tag may be determined by determining alternative parameters θ which express the set of historical production data equally well as the solution to the original parameter estimation problem. In a preferred embodiment, this quality tag is found by generating a set of synthetic data sets which are qualitatively similar to the original data set and generating parameter estimates for each of these data sets in a manner similar to the original parameters. In a preferred embodiment, this method may be carried out by means of bootstrapping, as is described in Efron, B and Tibshirani, R. (1993) An introduction to the Bootstrap, Champan & Hall.
  • Determine optimal throughput
  • In a preferred embodiment the method is used to determine changes in manipulated variables which increase throughput and/or profit. In a preferred embodiment this change in manipulated variable is determined by solving a numerical optimization problem u ^ θ ^ x ^ θ ^ = arg max u , x M x u d s . t 0 = f x u d θ ^ 0 c x u d .
    Figure imgb0011

    where M(x,u,d) is some measure of profit and/or throughput and c expresses production constraints.
  • The present invention is not limited to the above-described preferred embodiments. Various alternatives, modifications and equivalents may be used. Therefore, the above embodiments should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention which is defined by the appending claims.
  • Claims (21)

    1. A computer implemented method in an oil and/or a gas production system comprising a plurality of oil and/or gas wells each producing a multiphase fluid stream, adapted for predicting change in produced fluids resulting from change in manipulated variables, wherein fitted model parameters which express the relationship between the change in manipulated variables and the produced fluids are determined from a set of historical production measurements, said method comprising the steps of
      a. choosing a model structure which predicts change in produced fluids as a function of the change in manipulated variables, where the predicted change in produced fluids depends on the value of fitted model parameters
      b. determining fitted model parameters so that predictions of produced fluids match said historical production measurements as closely as possible characterized by
      c. determining a quality tag that describes the uncertainty of said predictions of change in produced fluids
      wherein the quality tag for the predictions of produced fluids is determined by quantifying what range of fitted model parameter values give equivalent matches to the set of historical production measurements.
    2. Method according to claim 1, wherein the fitted model parameters are used to determine values of manipulated variables which increase throughput.
    3. Method according to claim 2, wherein at least one quality tag is used to determine values of manipulated variables which increase throughput.
    4. Method according to claim 1, wherein fitted model parameters are determined through statistical regression analysis.
    5. Method according to claim 1, wherein fitted model parameters are determined through dynamic system identification.
    6. Method according to claim 1, wherein said description of uncertainty of fitted model parameters is determined through bootstrapping.
    7. Method according to claim 1, wherein at least one fitted model parameter describes measurement uncertainty.
    8. Method according to claim 1, wherein said model structure in addition to fitted model parameters depends on model parameters which are fixed.
    9. Method according to claim 1, wherein said model structure is based on physical modeling, black-box modeling, or a combination thereof.
    10. Method according to claim 1, wherein said historical production measurements include measurements of manipulated variables that influence routing valves, gas lift valves or production valves in the production system.
    11. Method according to claim 1, wherein said model structure is used to determine the present production of individual wells.
    12. Method according to claim 1 wherein said description of uncertainty is used to reduce or compensate for uncertainty in fitted model parameters.
    13. Method according to claim 1, where the set of historical production measurements can describe normal operations, where some manipulated variables are changed little and where other manipulated variables are altered simultaneously.
    14. Method according to claim 1, wherein said historical production measurements include measurements from a test separator.
    15. Method according to claim 1, wherein said historical production measurements include measurements from a multiphase meter.
    16. Method according to claim 1, wherein said historical production measurements include measurements of separated produced fluids from one or several wells, such as the total separated production of oil, gas or water.
    17. Method according to claim 1, wherein a reference to at least one of prediction of produced fluids, quality tag or fitted model parameter, is presented to a user or an operator.
    18. Method according to claim 1, wherein the fluid streams produced by the individual wells are commingled and routed via a fluid separation assembly.
    19. Computer program loadable into the internal memory of a processing unit in a computer based system, comprising software code portions for performing the steps according to any of the claims 1-18, when said product is run on said system.
    20. Computer program product stored on a computer readable medium, comprising a readable program for causing a processing unit in a computer based system, to control an execution of the steps according to any of the claims 1-18.
    21. A system for oil and/or gas production comprising a plurality of oil and/or gas wells each producing a multiphase fluid stream, with means adapted for predicting change in produced fluids resulting from change in manipulated variables, and computer implemented means adapted to carry out a method in which fitted model parameters which express the relationship between the change in manipulated variables and the produced fluids are determined from a set of historical production measurements, said method comprising the steps of
      a. choosing a model structure which predicts change in produced fluids as a function of the change in manipulated variables, where the predicted change in produced fluids depends on the value of fitted model parameters
      b. determining fitted model parameters so that predictions of produced fluids match said historical production measurements as closely as possible characterized by
      c. determining a quality tag that describes the uncertainty of said predictions of change in produced fluids
      wherein the quality tag for the predictions of produced fluids is determined by quantifying what range of fitted model parameter values give equivalent matches to the set of historical production measurements.
    EP20080803756 2007-09-07 2008-09-05 Method for prediction in an oil/gas production system Expired - Fee Related EP2201216B1 (en)

    Priority Applications (3)

    Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
    US93594507P true 2007-09-07 2007-09-07
    NO20074557A NO327688B1 (en) 2007-09-07 2007-09-07 A method and system for prediction in an oil / gas production system
    PCT/EP2008/061787 WO2009030756A2 (en) 2007-09-07 2008-09-05 Method for prediction in an oil/gas production system

    Publications (2)

    Publication Number Publication Date
    EP2201216A2 EP2201216A2 (en) 2010-06-30
    EP2201216B1 true EP2201216B1 (en) 2013-07-03

    Family

    ID=40429442

    Family Applications (1)

    Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
    EP20080803756 Expired - Fee Related EP2201216B1 (en) 2007-09-07 2008-09-05 Method for prediction in an oil/gas production system

    Country Status (7)

    Country Link
    US (1) US8380475B2 (en)
    EP (1) EP2201216B1 (en)
    BR (1) BRPI0816277A2 (en)
    DK (1) DK2201216T3 (en)
    EA (1) EA201070342A1 (en)
    NO (1) NO327688B1 (en)
    WO (1) WO2009030756A2 (en)

    Families Citing this family (23)

    * Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
    Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
    NO327688B1 (en) * 2007-09-07 2009-09-14 Abb As A method and system for prediction in an oil / gas production system
    US8214186B2 (en) * 2008-02-04 2012-07-03 Schlumberger Technology Corporation Oilfield emulator
    US8234073B2 (en) * 2009-10-23 2012-07-31 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. System and method for estimating geological architecture of a geologic volume
    FI123491B (en) 2010-08-26 2013-05-31 Outotec Oyj Mixing clarification basin, an arrangement comprising at least two mixing clarification basins and a method for measuring and adjusting the volume ratio of the organic phase to the aqueous phase O / A and the phase separation time in the dispersion
    US9031674B2 (en) * 2010-10-13 2015-05-12 Schlumberger Technology Corporation Lift-gas optimization with choke control
    US8788252B2 (en) * 2010-10-26 2014-07-22 Schlumberger Technology Corporation Multi-well time-lapse nodal analysis of transient production systems
    EP2508707B1 (en) * 2011-04-05 2019-10-30 GE Oil & Gas UK Limited Monitoring the phase composition of production fluid from a hydrocarbon extraction well
    US9146903B2 (en) * 2011-11-15 2015-09-29 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Method of using spatially independent subsets of data to calculate vertical trend curve uncertainty of spatially correlated reservoir data
    FR2995538B1 (en) 2012-09-18 2015-04-10 Wintech Global Multiphasic fluid treatment plant and method for online characterization of said fluid
    US10138717B1 (en) 2014-01-07 2018-11-27 Novi Labs, LLC Predicting well performance with feature similarity
    US9957781B2 (en) 2014-03-31 2018-05-01 Hitachi, Ltd. Oil and gas rig data aggregation and modeling system
    MX2017002531A (en) * 2014-08-27 2017-06-08 Digital H2O Inc Oilfield water management.
    US10489523B2 (en) * 2014-10-22 2019-11-26 Board Of Supervisors Of Louisiana State University And Agricultural And Mechanical College Apparatuses, systems and methods for performing remote real-time experiments
    WO2016148756A1 (en) * 2015-03-19 2016-09-22 Landmark Graphics Corporation System for automated oilfield supply demand balancing and forecasting
    CN106021659B (en) * 2016-05-10 2019-05-07 中国石油天然气股份有限公司 A kind of natural gas filling under erosion-carbon dioxide corrosion coupling adopts the determination method of well casing column corrosion rate
    CA3025346A1 (en) 2016-05-26 2017-11-30 Leroy Thomas KUHN Method and apparatus for separating and measuring multiphase immiscible fluid mixtures
    US9897259B1 (en) 2017-04-18 2018-02-20 Air Products And Chemicals, Inc. Control system in a gas pipeline network to satisfy pressure constraints
    US9915399B1 (en) 2017-04-18 2018-03-13 Air Products And Chemicals, Inc. Control system in a gas pipeline network to satisfy demand constraints
    US9890908B1 (en) * 2017-04-18 2018-02-13 Air Products And Chemicals, Inc. Control system in a gas pipeline network to increase capacity factor
    US10415760B2 (en) 2017-04-18 2019-09-17 Air Products And Chemicals, Inc. Control system in an industrial gas pipeline network to satisfy energy consumption constraints at production plants
    US9897260B1 (en) 2017-04-18 2018-02-20 Air Products And Chemicals, Inc. Control system in an industrial gas pipeline network to satisfy energy consumption constraints at production plants
    CN108119761B (en) * 2017-12-14 2020-02-14 中国石油天然气股份有限公司 Method for predicting corrosion degree of natural gas pipeline under gas-liquid two-phase flow
    RU2722190C1 (en) * 2019-11-19 2020-05-28 Александр Иосифович Пономарёв Method for development of multi-layer deposits of natural gases

    Family Cites Families (7)

    * Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
    Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
    US6980940B1 (en) * 2000-02-22 2005-12-27 Schlumberger Technology Corp. Intergrated reservoir optimization
    US7672825B2 (en) * 2004-06-25 2010-03-02 Shell Oil Company Closed loop control system for controlling production of hydrocarbon fluid from an underground formation
    CA2583029C (en) * 2004-11-01 2013-09-24 Shell Canada Limited Method and system for production metering of oil wells
    US20070016389A1 (en) * 2005-06-24 2007-01-18 Cetin Ozgen Method and system for accelerating and improving the history matching of a reservoir simulation model
    EP2562531A3 (en) * 2007-04-16 2013-03-06 The General Hospital Corporation d/b/a Massachusetts General Hospital Systems and methods for particle focusing in microchannels
    NO327688B1 (en) * 2007-09-07 2009-09-14 Abb As A method and system for prediction in an oil / gas production system
    CN102483410A (en) * 2009-03-25 2012-05-30 莱泽尔诊断公司 Apparatus and methods for analyzing fluid variables

    Also Published As

    Publication number Publication date
    WO2009030756A2 (en) 2009-03-12
    US8380475B2 (en) 2013-02-19
    EA201070342A1 (en) 2010-08-30
    NO20074557L (en) 2009-03-09
    US20100174517A1 (en) 2010-07-08
    WO2009030756A3 (en) 2009-06-25
    BRPI0816277A2 (en) 2016-01-12
    NO327688B1 (en) 2009-09-14
    EP2201216A2 (en) 2010-06-30
    DK2201216T3 (en) 2013-09-30

    Similar Documents

    Publication Publication Date Title
    Canova et al. Panel Vector Autoregressive Models: A Survey☆ The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ECB or the Eurosystem.
    US9047559B2 (en) Computer-implemented systems and methods for testing large scale automatic forecast combinations
    Koopman et al. The multi-state latent factor intensity model for credit rating transitions
    AU2007207497B8 (en) Dynamic production system management
    Laird et al. Mixed-integer approach for obtaining unique solutions in source inversion of water networks
    Fujiwara et al. Soft‐sensor development using correlation‐based just‐in‐time modeling
    US7254564B2 (en) Neural network based predication and optimization for groundwater/surface water system
    CN101379271B (en) Methods, systems, and computer-readable media for real-time oil and gas field production optimization using a proxy simulator
    Lèbre Inferring dynamic genetic networks with low order independencies
    Meyer et al. Network topology and parameter estimation: from experimental design methods to gene regulatory network kinetics using a community based approach
    KR102069958B1 (en) Systems and Methods for Tuning Process Models
    Ayvaz A linked simulation–optimization model for solving the unknown groundwater pollution source identification problems
    US7788074B2 (en) Method of modelling the production of an oil reservoir
    Kaneko et al. A soft sensor method based on values predicted from multiple intervals of time difference for improvement and estimation of prediction accuracy
    EP1687659B1 (en) Gas reservoir evaluation and assessment tool method and apparatus and program storage device
    Wright et al. Control of water distribution networks with dynamic DMA topology using strictly feasible sequential convex programming
    AU2011380514B2 (en) Statistical reservoir model based on detected flow events
    EP1996963B1 (en) Monte carlo simulation of well logging data
    Lindsten et al. Bayesian semiparametric Wiener system identification
    US8589135B2 (en) Systems, computer implemented methods, and computer readable program products to compute approximate well drainage pressure for a reservoir simulator
    US20060247798A1 (en) Method and system for performing multi-objective predictive modeling, monitoring, and update for an asset
    US8775361B2 (en) Stochastic programming-based decision support tool for reservoir development planning
    Comert et al. An online change-point-based model for traffic parameter prediction
    EP2582911B1 (en) Method of improving the production of a mature gas or oil field
    Fulford et al. Machine learning as a reliable technology for evaluating time/rate performance of unconventional wells

    Legal Events

    Date Code Title Description
    AX Request for extension of the european patent to

    Extension state: AL BA MK RS

    AK Designated contracting states:

    Kind code of ref document: A2

    Designated state(s): AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK TR

    17P Request for examination filed

    Effective date: 20100407

    17Q First examination report

    Effective date: 20110324

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: DE

    Ref legal event code: R079

    Ref document number: 602008025787

    Country of ref document: DE

    Free format text: PREVIOUS MAIN CLASS: E21B0049000000

    Ipc: E21B0043000000

    RIC1 Classification (correction)

    Ipc: G01F 25/00 20060101ALI20120124BHEP

    Ipc: G01F 1/74 20060101ALI20120124BHEP

    Ipc: G01F 15/06 20060101ALI20120124BHEP

    Ipc: E21B 43/34 20060101ALI20120124BHEP

    Ipc: E21B 43/00 20060101AFI20120124BHEP

    DAX Request for extension of the european patent (to any country) deleted
    AK Designated contracting states:

    Kind code of ref document: B1

    Designated state(s): AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK TR

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: GB

    Ref legal event code: FG4D

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: CH

    Ref legal event code: EP

    Ref country code: AT

    Ref legal event code: REF

    Ref document number: 619907

    Country of ref document: AT

    Kind code of ref document: T

    Effective date: 20130715

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: IE

    Ref legal event code: FG4D

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: DE

    Ref legal event code: R096

    Ref document number: 602008025787

    Country of ref document: DE

    Effective date: 20130829

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: DK

    Ref legal event code: T3

    Effective date: 20130926

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: SI

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: AT

    Ref legal event code: MK05

    Ref document number: 619907

    Country of ref document: AT

    Kind code of ref document: T

    Effective date: 20130703

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: NL

    Ref legal event code: VDEP

    Effective date: 20130703

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: LT

    Ref legal event code: MG4D

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: LT

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: HR

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: PT

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20131104

    Ref country code: AT

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: CY

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130828

    Ref country code: IS

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20131103

    Ref country code: SE

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: BE

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: NO

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20131003

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: LV

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: PL

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: NL

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: ES

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20131014

    Ref country code: FI

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: GR

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20131004

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: CY

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: CH

    Ref legal event code: PL

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: EE

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: CZ

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: SK

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: MC

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: RO

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    26N No opposition filed

    Effective date: 20140404

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: FR

    Ref legal event code: ST

    Effective date: 20140530

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: IE

    Ref legal event code: MM4A

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: DE

    Ref legal event code: R097

    Ref document number: 602008025787

    Country of ref document: DE

    Effective date: 20140404

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: CH

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES

    Effective date: 20130930

    Ref country code: LI

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES

    Effective date: 20130930

    Ref country code: IE

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES

    Effective date: 20130905

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: FR

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES

    Effective date: 20130930

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: MT

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: TR

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: HU

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT; INVALID AB INITIO

    Effective date: 20080905

    Ref country code: BG

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

    Effective date: 20130703

    Ref country code: LU

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES

    Effective date: 20130905

    PGFP Postgrant: annual fees paid to national office

    Ref country code: DE

    Payment date: 20150922

    Year of fee payment: 8

    Ref country code: GB

    Payment date: 20150917

    Year of fee payment: 8

    PGFP Postgrant: annual fees paid to national office

    Ref country code: DK

    Payment date: 20150918

    Year of fee payment: 8

    Ref country code: IT

    Payment date: 20150924

    Year of fee payment: 8

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: DE

    Ref legal event code: R119

    Ref document number: 602008025787

    Country of ref document: DE

    REG Reference to a national code

    Ref country code: DK

    Ref legal event code: EBP

    Effective date: 20160930

    GBPC Gb: european patent ceased through non-payment of renewal fee

    Effective date: 20160905

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: GB

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES

    Effective date: 20160905

    Ref country code: DE

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES

    Effective date: 20170401

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: IT

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES

    Effective date: 20160905

    PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state announced via postgrant inform. from nat. office to epo

    Ref country code: DK

    Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF DUE FEES

    Effective date: 20160930